I Carry A Handgun Because (2018):

This is a topic I last addressed on this scruffy little blog in August of 2016. In light of recent events, and the newly energized anti-liberty/Second Amendment movement, it’s time for an update.

I do not advertise the fact that I carry a concealed handgun, or that I am an instructor. However, on the occasions when this comes up, people are often amazed. Not because I am a diminutive wisp of a fellow–I’m anything but, and if I do say so myself, and I do, I’m roguishly masculine (anyway, Mrs. Manor likes me)–but because I am an English teacher and singer, and my default facial expression is a smile. The usually resulting conversation:

Friend: “Really? You carry a gun?”

Me: “Yup.”

Friend: “Where?”

Me: “Everywhere.”

Friend: “Everywhere?!”

Me: “I even carry a spear gun in the shower.”

Friend: “No!”

Me: “No; but everywhere else.”

Friend: “But why?”

I usually hit on a few of the high points, issues of logic, common sense, gentle persuasion enabling those that already know me to accept a side of me previously unimagined. Employing my most frequently used weapon–the keyboard–let us, gentle readers, reason together.

Just a taste….follow the link above for the whole sickening bunch of Hollywierd’s most blatant ‘bad ass’ hypocrites.

Will These Pro-Gun Control Celebrities Make Another Film Using Firearms?

Last week, actress and star of NBC’s The Black List Megan Boone tweeted that her character on the popular crime drama would “never carry an assault rifle again.” The tweet — which was in response to the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, that saw Nikolas Cruz kill 17 people with a legally purchased AR-15 rifle — posed a glaring question.

“Will other pro-gun control Hollywood actors and directors who’ve used firearms in films for years pledge to lay down their guns in future films?

It’s a question that could be asked of the likes of legendary director Steven Spielberg, whose has written, directed, or produced dozens of movies and TV series that have featured the use of guns.

George Clooney pledged to give $500,000 to a gun control march but his career is littered with film roles (at lease a dozen) in which his characters wielded a gun. Will he now pledged to leave guns out of his future projects?

The same question can be asked of actors Jim Carrey, Mark Ruffalo, and Matt Damon, who have all portrayed gun-wielding characters in popular movies but have also advocated for the enactment of more gun laws — reforms that will invariably make it harder for law-abiding citizens to purchase or sell firearms.

Below is a list of Hollywood stars and preeminent filmmakers who used guns on screen while calling for more gun control.”

George Clooney

George Clooney has starred in at least 10 films, from The Peacemaker to Ocean’s Eleven to Monuments Men, that saw his character use a gun. But the veteran star is now a vocal advocate for gun control, donating $500,000 to the upcoming student march for gun control, March for Our Lives.

Samuel L. Jackson

Samuel L. Jackson has spent 30 years wielding guns onscreen in more than 35 films. While the Avengers star has long-advocated for the Second Amendment, he called President Donald Trump a “muthefucka” and mocked his proposal to arm teachers; a proposal that nearly half the country believes is a good idea.

Alec Baldwin

Actor Alec Baldwin called for a national registry of all gun owners in the wake of the Parkland, Florida, shooting. “You are more likely to use a car or emergency vehicle in saving a life. We license/register those cars and their drivers. More likely to need a prescription. We license those who distribute such drugs. We license doctors. Electricians. Lawyers. It’s time to register all guns,” Baldwin wrote on Twitter.

Alec Baldwin in The Edge. (1997, Art Linson Productions).

Amy Schumer in Snatched (2017, Twentieth Century Fox)

Alyssa Milano

Allyssa Milano is one of Hollywood’s most pro-gun control advocates. The Charmed star called for “Sensible gun control NOW” after last year’s Vegas mass shooting and currently pushing an effort for to force Amazon to drop the National Rifle Association’s online video channel from its streaming service.

Alyssa Milano in Wisegal (2008, Daniel H. Blatt Productions)

Michael Keaton

Michael Keaton has been pushing for gun control for years. The Batman actor signed a letter in 2016 intended to urge Congress to vote on former President Barack Obama’s gun control proposal. Earlier this month, Keaton called Republicans and National Rifle Association members “weak, disgusting cowards.”

Michael Keaton in American Assassin (2017, CBS Films)

Julianne Moore

Julianne Moore said in 2016 that gun control “is not a Second Amendment issue! It does not deserve to be hotly debated as such! It is a safety issue!” In October, Moore said she believes there should be “limitations on the amount of firearms you can own” and urged her fans to joined the upcoming march for gun control.

From the man who makes them: “Those who have bought from reading here said they wished the listing had the ones with jute in them. If you put in the notes or send an email you found them here Ill mix and match what you want at no additional cost. This is a thank you for supporting this site. Halfpint45Always clearing my 6 God Bless”

………………………………………………………

Every now and again, I find a great little survival product on ebay that actually performs like it’s supposed to, is very reasonably priced, and gives you the confidence you’re looking for in a survival product.

In this case, it’s a Fire Starter – Tinder that’s homemade by the seller, and sold exclusively on ebay, who goes by ‘halfpint45’. He offers it in several variations of numbers and two configurations.

Option A – $10.97

Option 2 – $10.35 shipped

One has jute interwoven and the other does not. They’re extremely light, waterproof, and, if one used an entire piece, would last longer than vaseline infused cotton balls, and are a hell of a lot less messy.

I ordered the larger 50 pack of the ‘plain jane model,’ (full disclosure) and included a few of the jute interwoven for me to try out. (Full disclosure – I had told him after the transaction about DTG’s blog and that I was going to do a review, so he threw them in and instructed me to be straight up no matter what I thought.) The waxed jute interwoven into the cotton rope makes this fire starter ‘super charged,’ if you will.

I ordered the large lot – 50 of the wax cotton starters for $10.35, shipped – about .20 cents each. Not bad for a supply that size – I might get a couple more for stored preps at that price! He’s also got an option to get 12 with jute, 20 plain, a striker, a ferro rod and 4 feet of waxed jute for $10.97. SHIPPED.

In discussion with him, he says he can offer these so inexpensively because he buys all his materials in bulk. Makes sense to me. Now, I’m sure the DIY types can probably make these easily at home if you have the time and don’t mind whatever mess it’ll make, but for me, having them made up and ready to go is worth the cost. I’ve got some now in my ‘get home bag’, my SHTF ruck, my LBE, and my windproof smock. All for under $11. Not too shabby.

Bottom line? They. Work.

The one thing I’m doing is in each area I’ve added these, I prep one or two by shredding the ends, so that if I’m in a situation where I need “Fire, NOW!”, getting one lit will be that much faster (I also have several lighters stashed on my person at any given time, so I would go to that first, before employing a ferro rod/striker combo. So, they’re added to my fire kit, along with some very dry red pine slivers, dryer lint, ‘wet fire’ tinder pieces, some magnesium, I’m pretty confident I can get a fire going most ricky tick.

All in all, I give this neat little product an AAA+ rating. Check this seller out and get a few; you won’t be sorry.

Shredding the end of the Fire Starter

Prepared to add spark or fire – I do mine a bit more for a sparking device…

Heads Up: Liberal “Gotcha!” Project Targetting Gun Rights

Heads up, boys and girls:

Virginia – (via Ammoland.com) Last weekend, while doing what seemed to be a regular interview, I discovered that a movie is being made with the intent to discredit gun-rights leaders across the country.

No, this is not a joke, it is real and we need to get the word out to other gun-rights organizations, gun-rights leaders, and prominent firearms trainers across the country and we need to do this FAST.

Back in 2014, alleged Hollywood sexual predator Harvey Weinstein said he was going to make a movie “that would make the NRA wish they weren’t alive.” (All gun organizations are the NRA in his mind.) And he was dead serious. Michael Moore has been attempting to discredit gun owners and leaders for years by tricking people and using creative editing techniques to make them look foolish or idiotic.

Who’s behind this effort isn’t clear, but they are EXTREMELY WELL FUNDED PROFESSIONALS.

Think a Leftard version of the Veritas Project, by way of Borat.

As the 15-minute interview terminated, the interviewer asked me if I, as an English-speaking firearms trainer, would help him make a “gun safety” training video for children of various ages. This had to be the “kicker,” I thought.

I was right – it was a set up – and it was much worse than I could have imagined. If you’ve seen the 70’s movie, “The Sting,” it was much like that. It was a well-orchestrated, well-choreographed, psychological manipulation, with a production cast of at least 10 people, to slowly lead a person down the primrose path.

We went step-by-step with a ready, and seemingly logical, answer every time I balked at some crazy part of the training. They seemed to have thought of every thing that a person might question. All I can say is that these people were extremely good at deception and manipulation. And no matter how stupid the things the interviewer and I were doing (we were side-by-side the whole time), no one else cracked a smile or laughed once, and I was watching. The professional actors were keeping up the appearance that this was a serious project.

The end goal was to get the victim to make a “training film”teaching 3 and 4-year-olds how to shoot guns hidden in toy animals at “bad” people, to sing little songs and make gun noises during the training to make it “fun for children,” and even teach little kids how to shoot a rocket-propelled-grenade or a squad automatic weapon at an approaching suicide bomber vehicle!
It all sounds unbelievable. But everything was elaborately and expensively staged; every contingency planned for, with explanations that make unbelievable things seem plausible (fake documents and videos about how Israel handles security in their schools, for example). The interview moved along at a pace, designed not to give the “mark” time to reflect on where things are going. The craziness factor very gradually got more extreme, like cooking a frog by slowly heating up the water so he doesn’t realize what’s happening until it’s too late. It’s a con game, a sting, plain and simple.

I don’t know if they have other scenarios or they will use other company names to continue concealing their identity, but anyone doing an interview dealing with gun rights where they sense something odd should terminate that interview. Or, better, bring a recorder and tell the other party you are going to make your own recording of the interview. If they say “no,” then walk out. I am going to make that my own policy going forward to protect against any future fake interviews. BTW, they had me leave my cellphone in an office “because it might interfere with the recording devices,” but I think it was so I couldn’t take any photos of them or make any video or audio recordings on that phone.

I’ve worked in production for A-list movies and TV for over 20 years, kids. There’s quite simply no way in hell a cellphone would “interfere with recording devices”. On an average set, there are 100 cellphones within 50 feet of the camera and sound cart 24/7/365/forever.

There’s more at the link, incl. screenshots of their WhoIs lookup, their LLC filing papers shielded as a WY corporation, their business address maildrop at a UPS Store in West Hollywood, and multiple Craigslist posting trolling for crisis actors and marks.

RTWT.
And pass the word on every pro-gun and 2A-friendly site you visit, and to any and all firearms trainers and spokesperson you know about.

These @$$holes have a bone to pick, and a serious dose of the red-@$$ with guns, the NRA, gun owners, and the whole crew of Trumpist MAGA Deplorables. So based on the info at the link, I don’t doubt for a moment that somebody with deep pockets is ginning up a BS hit piece, exactly as described, and probably far worse.

Warn off the good guys, try to dox the bad guys, and let’s burn these mofos down.

And FFS, remember:

THERE IS NO ONE IN THE MEDIA – NEWSPAPERS, RADIO, TV, DOCUMENTARY, WHATEVER – WHO IS YOU’RE FRIEND, UNLESS YOU KNOW THEM AND THEIR PUBLIC PRO-2A POSITION PERSONALLY, INTIMATELY, AND EXTENSIVELY.

There are a lot of articles and discussion forum threads on barrel twist rate for AR-15s. So why am I writing one? Well, some of the information on the web is very wrong. Additionally, this closes out comment threads we’ve had here touching on this topic, EMail exchanges I’ve had with readers, and personal conversations I’ve had with shooters and friends about this subject. It’s natural to put this down in case anyone else can benefit from the information. Or you may not benefit at all. That’s up to you.

This is a discussion about 5.56mm ammunition and barrel twist rates (and later, about the shooter and ammunition quality). If you wish to debate the effectiveness of the 5.56mm round generally, or wish to disparage the choice of the Eugene Stoner system, I’m sure there are forums for you. This is not it.

In the real world, ammunition isn’t concentric, and even if it is almost precisely concentric, pour density can be slightly different throughout the ball, and voids can develop. This causes gyroscopic stability problems with bullets, even in the best manufactured ammunition. But much ammunition would not be considered the “best manufactured ammunition.” Ammunition will only be as good as the QA under which it was made.

When center of gravity is off-axis it can cause bullet lateral throwoff, yaw and a host of other problems with bullet trajectory. In order to overcome these problems, rifling twist achieves this gyroscopic stability for the bullet, thus negating the effects of the manufacturing process (at least in part).

Conventional wisdom taught us that slower twist rates wouldn’t properly-stabilize a bullet, causing it to yaw. On the other hand, faster rates could over-stabilize lighter bullets, causing similar problems. This is correct in theory—however, modern ballisticians have pretty much de-bunked the over-stabilization theory as a practical matter. All things being equal, it is better to have too much twist than not enough.

While his statement is a bit imprecise, there is something very precise about it. It is precisely wrong. Yet there are much cleaner and simpler explanations of why high twist rate is not always good. One commenter at this discussion thread summed it up well.

You can certainly overstablilze (sic) a bullet if you spin it so fast it doesn’t nose over at the top of its trajectory … Best thing to do is not spin bullets any faster than what’s needed for best accuracy.

Correct. If a bullet is overstabilized, it tends to stay pointed along its axis of rotation, even on the final (downward) part of its trajectory. This can cause keyholing, odd aerodynamic effects (flying sideways through the air) and even bullets to wildly spin off trajectory.

Bullets from rifled barrels eventually achieve stability by yawing back and forth, while undergoing a larger revolution about the major axis of the trajectory. So quite obviously, it’s necessary to spin the bullet, and to spin it enough to give it stability, while protecting the need to nose over on the final part of its trajectory. Getting this twist rate and spin right has been a matter of much testing, internet fights, and lot of engineering study and heavy spending by the taxpayers. I know that my guns perform well, and so I decided to contact my manufacturer for his opinion on the matter.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have two Rock River Arms rifles, one Elite CAR A4 with a 16″ Barrel, twist 1:9, Quad Rail, and another competition gun with a muzzle brake and 18″ SS barrel with a twist rate = 1:8. I have recommended RRA rifles to my readers before, but there are many good guns on the market. Your probably have one. I sent a list of three questions to RRA, and Steve gave me these responses (the question isn’t included because it wasn’t forwarded back to me, but it’s apparent what I asked except for the first question, which was basically does RRA warranty their 1 MOA for both M193 and M855. This is Steve’s response.

Herschel,

Thanks for your questions. I’m going to take them in reverse order.

3. 1:9 is adequate for many, but not all rounds typically used in an AR platform. Between .223 Remington and 5.56mm NATO, there are rounds from 45 to 90 grains (that I am familiar with) and I know of, but have never shot, lighter and heavier rounds. No single twist is going to handle all of them. 1:9 is adequate for a sizable number of them, however…including the two most commonly available, in bulk and at reasonable prices…55gr FMJ (M193)and 62/63gr FMJ (M855). It is not ideal for rounds lighter than 50gr nor those over 68 or 69 grains, which is why there are other twist rates commonly available…including from RRA. We offer a 1:12 24” bull barrel for our Varmint hunters who prefer to use the lighter bullets for prairie dogs and other targets, and both 1:7 and 1:8 barrels in a variety of configurations for those who want to shoot heavier bullets…up to and including the newer 77gr loads and 80gr VLDs. We’ve also run custom twists for a limited number of contracted purchases.

2. Yes. 1:9 does well with both M193 and M855. Different barrels perform differently, but 1:9 generally stabilizes both weight/length bullets fairly well, It neither over nor under spins either and does not produce key holing.

1. The hardest question to answer. Neither M193 nor M855 are notoriously accurate rounds. They meet military, not match, requirements. Our accuracy claims are the rifle’s capability…but the shooter and ammo have to do their parts. There are loads that are commercially available and claimed to be “M193” and “M855” equivalents that clearly aren’t, and they aren’t capable of ”minute of bad guy” at 100 yards, let alone the .75 to 1.5 MOA claims that we make for our different rifles. That is no reflection on our rifles or barrels, or the shooters…unfortunately there is some real crappy ammo on the market today, which will not perform well out of any barrel, of any twist rate.

Thanks.

Steve/RRA

This is a good response, but let’s not stop here. While perhaps not recalled by some, American Rifleman has given us a fairly comprehensive look at 5.56mm ammunition and barrel twist rates in an article entitled Testing The Army’s M855A1 Standard Ball Cartridge. It is rich with history on how the Army fielded the M855A1. Ignore the issue of the M855 versus the M855A1 for a moment and consider the background.

Accuracy cannot be assessed without addressing the rifle barrels’ twist-rates. In the early 1980s the M855’s 62-grain bullet was developed for the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW). For purposes of interoperability, the same load was adopted as the M16A2 rifle’s standard ball as well. A February 1986 U.S. Army study noted that the M855’s bullet required a “1:9 twist [which] would be more appropriate for the M16A2 rifle, improving accuracy and reliability.” Multiple studies confirmed the 1:9-inch twist requirement.

But then a problem arose. The U.S. military’s standard M856 5.56 mm tracer round was longer, heavier (63.7 grains) and slower than the M855 ball, and simply would not stabilize with a 1:9-inch twist barrel. Thus, despite it doubling M855 group sizes, the M16A2 (and later, the M4) specified a 1:7-inch rate-of-twist barrel to stabilize the tracer round. It remains so to this day. Therefore, M855A1 was test-fired with both 1:7- and 1:9-inch twist barrels, and it was verified that this new cartridge is consistently more accurate in the latter barrels-as was its predecessor.

Don’t slip past these paragraphs, because they explain why “Milspec” is 1:7. It isn’t because 1:7 shoots M193 or M855 more accurately. It’s because of the weight of tracer rounds. As we’ve discussed before, the term Milspec doesn’t mean better, or worse, or anything at all except that it precisely meets the specifications outlined in the purchase order(s), excepting whatever variance notifications they might make on a given batch of guns.

The M855A1’s developers have described it as yielding “match-like” accuracy, which most rifle shooters would define as one minute-of-angle (m.o.a.), or groups measuring no more than 1 inch at 100 yards. While the new ammunition has proved more accurate than the green-tipped load it replaced, testing did not yield match-like accuracy, especially in the standard 1:7-inch twist-rate found in today’s M4s and M16s. At 100 yards, the best group with a 1:7-inch barrel was 1.62 inches (1.6 m.o.a.). At 300 yards. it similarly fired 1.6 m.o.a. (4.9 inches) and widened to 1.8 m.o.a. (7.5 inches) at 400 yards. At these same distances, firing the M855A1 through a 1:9-inch twist barrel reduced group sizes by approximately half.

The tests demonstrated that 1:9 twist produced better accuracy, approximately twice as accurate. Now take note what the testers found with the newer M855A1 regarding repeatability.

On average, the new ammunition produced one flyer in roughly each five rounds, which, it can be argued, exaggerated the group sizes. Since the Army announced that, “On average, 95 percent of the [M855A1] rounds will hit an 8×8-inch target at 600 meters,” each group’s most errant bullet impact was discarded and group sizes recalculated. Statistically they improved, but not enough to place 95 percent of rounds so close at 600 meters, at least when using the standard 1:7-inch barrel-which may explain why accuracy was less than expected.

There is one “flyer” in every five rounds. This seems to me to be a significant problem with this ammunition combined with the barrel twist, and the commenters don’t seem to like it very much either. Finally, this.

When U.S. Army shooters twice fired public demonstrations of the new round, they did not employ standard 1:7-inch twist M16A2s or M4s, but accurized, match-grade, stainless-barreled rifles from the Army Marksmanship Unit (AMU). I contacted the AMU and learned that these rifles did not have standard-issue 1:7-inch barrels, but most likely 1:8-inch twist, which probably accounts for their “match-like” accuracy.

Isn’t that rich? The Army made claims of “match-like accuracy,” and proved the rounds shooting out of different barrels than are deployed with Soldiers, using 1:8 twist, not 1:7 twist.

The American Rifleman article goes on to discuss in some detail the performance of the M855A1 with slim-profiled targets like malnourished tribal fighters in Afghanistan (so-called “ice picking” the target without fragmentation), performance at barrier penetration (concluding that it is better than its predecessor), and its lethality once it does penetrate barriers. I recommend this reading to you. It’s well worth the time.

So to summarize what we know, remember some basic things. First, the bullet has to be spun to give it gyroscopic stability. This spin needs to match the bullet (including mass and length), and care must be taken not to over-stabilize the bullet. If you shoot typical .223 ammunition (55 gr.), or M193 or M855, a twist rate of 1:9 is probably just about ideal. You’ll probably lose some accuracy with a higher twist rate.

This loss of accuracy is likely not significant for a lot of shooters. If you shoot much heavier ammunition (and there is a lot on the market), you probably need to consider a twist rate of 1:8. Finally, none of this matches the value of good ammunition or good shooting.

That’s the good news. Most guns can outperform the shooter, and I know that’s the case with me. I’m a decent shooter. Not great, but decent. I’ve taken my Tikka T3 .270 bolt action rifle and literally put rounds through the same hole at 100 yards (with slightly more tearing of the same hole in the paper). On the other hand, this is with a good scope, no wind, a cool and comfortable day, all day to work my craft and thus no time pressure, no one else to be concerned about, lots of coffee to wake up, and a full belly.

But if I had kept records, it wouldn’t have happened again exactly like that since, theoretically, even with perfect ammunition, considering barrel harmonics and that physical processes like this are a heuristic phenomenon, if I had continued to log my shots this way, it would have doubtless shown a standard distribution (distance between each shot and mean).

But regardless of the details, you’ve done it before. Control breathing … get good sight picture … back out of the shot if you’re not mentally right … know where your trigger breaks … and so on. You know the drill, since you’ve done it many times. It’s perhaps the purest pleasure a shooter can have.

Now throw in simple annoyances like a whining partner at the range, losing daylight and time pressures, hunger, and any of the other 100 possible nuisances that can sap your accuracy. Then your accuracy goes to hell, doesn’t it? Now, combine that with wearing heavy gear and being shot at, and I’m sure it diminishes your control over your weapon. Thankfully, I only have the experiences of my former Marine son conveyed to me.

The good part of this is that regardless of your barrel twist rate, if your AR-15 is reliable, even if it’s not top of the line, it can probably outperform you. That means getting better isn’t a matter of getting a new rifle or barrel with a different twist. It means practicing with your rifle, sometimes under duress. It also means buying good ammunition. Steve at RRA is right. The shooter and ammo have to do their part. I object to cheap ammunition just like I object to cheap engine oil. I’m trying to develop the discipline at the store or online to buy better ammunition.

Right, I’ve got it. I feel your objection. Good ammunition (e.g., Hornady $2 per round .270 for my Tikka) hurts. This is my wealth, and it’s hard to part ways with it since it’s hard to earn it. But using bad ammunition at the range makes it hard to impossible to assess your practice. Use of my value pack Federal .223 at the range means that my accuracy is irrelevant if I’m using the same reticle holdovers I would for 5.56mm since the muzzle velocity is different (and very slightly lower than the 5.56mm). You’ve got the picture.

The best way to get better accuracy is probably not to get a better gun. It’s to practice with the one you’ve got.

Here is a related video I found interesting on gyroscopic stability. He’s wrong about the math being incomprehensible, but it is rather difficult if you’re involved with partial differentials or worse, the Navier-Stokes equations in CFD. You need some specialized training in mathematics in order to tackle that. You don’t have to know any of that in order to understand the basics of shooting.

This discussion probably won’t end the debate on barrel twist rate, and it certainly won’t end the fight between the Army and Marine Corps (who doesn’t want to deploy the M855A1). But I hope it was helpful to you.

Prima Facie evidence that the police and FBI are guilty of GROSS malfeasance (at the least) and are the direct cause as to why Florida happened. They’re no different than the ‘School Resource Officer’ who refused to confront Cruz.

He allegedly put a gun to someone’s head?? Really?? If he would have been living with someone or married and the partner/spouse called that in, they’d have tossed his entire house looking for it, he’d have been arrested, put on the Lautenberg ‘no buy’ list, and prosecuted.

So, since the police and feds didn’t perform their sworn duty ‘to protect the general public’ (because before the high school incident, the threat could be perceived against the ‘general public’, thereby violating several SCOTUS decisions on the duty of the police) when do the those sheriff’s deputies and federal agents with knowledge of he case get relieved of duty, disarmed, and the prosecutions start?

[Underlined boldface emphasis added.]

“911 records show the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office (PBCSO) was reportedly told in November 2017 that Nickolas Cruz allegedly put a gun to someone’s head.

CNN reports that the day after Thanksgiving 2017, PBCSO was called and told that Cruz had allegedly hidden a gun in the backyard of a family with which he was staying. Deputies conducted a search, then wrote up the incident as “domestic unfounded.”

PBCSO was called four days later with a report that Cruz had allegedly “lashed out against the family that took him in.” Deputies found Cruz at a local park and spoke with him. He told them he was upset because he had lost a photo of his late mother. But the family with which he was staying claimed he had just bought a gun and they believed he was coming back to use it against them.

During the second 911 call, the dispatcher was told that Cruz was buying “tons of ammo” and had allegedly put “put [a] gun to others heads in the past.””

These are called, ‘clues’ and should have been aggressively followed up on, especially in that the family he was staying with were scared shitless.

This, on the other hand, isn’t a clue, it’s a frickin’ SLAP FLARE:

Likewise, the FBI admitted that it did not act on a January 5, 2018, tip pertaining to “Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.”

Read the rest, here. And take the author’s advice to heart about protecting yourself and your family.